I'm think of purchasing Axiom's QS8 speakers for the surround portion of my 7.1 sound. However, I've read that:

"...omnipole speakers for that matter all provide more diffuse surround sound experience...but today's surrounds sound soundtracks are recorded and mastered...using direct radiating speakers and the discrete surround-sound channels with Dolby Digital and DTS...You'll get the best and most precise sound surround-sound performance when all of your speakers are direct radiators." - Home Theatre for Dummies, pg 81

Would I be better off with 4 bookshelves speakers like the M22s. Price is the same.

First of all, the Qs8's are not omnipole speakers, they are quadpolar designed. They have 4 drivers all firing in phase at the same time, unlike Bipole or Dipole speakers.

Axiom designed the Q's to basically give you the same experience a movie theater gives you, which has speakers lined along the side walls and rear walls. You DO want to be enveloped in the surround effects, not having them directly aimed at you, which is what a direct radiating speaker gives you.

I'm sure Alan will be along on this question asap, but I think your "dummies" book is wrong. If I remember correctly, Alan mentioned years ago that the engineering done by the studios are intended for speakers like the Q's, not direct radiating.

Another thing I will add, if you want gun fire in action movies to be flying across the room, get direct radiating. If you want the gun fire to seem like it is going right through you, get the Axioms, nuff said.

Axiom's QS series of surround speakers: For only $428 or $540/pair, live like 50 Cent.

Another good one, Charles!

<--- imagining CV going around the 'hood saying, "Ain't nothin' but a CV thang!"

I would have to go with SirQ on this one. Whoever wrote that in the book was rather closed minded or biased towards a singular concept.

Direct firing vs. a bipole/dipole/quad...provide different effects and the results or preferences will vary depending on each individual. I had the same questions many moons ago and sat down in the past with M22s and the Axiom QSx series to derive some of my impressions of the use of each in the surround capacity.

Have a read at the now ancient post and take it for what it is worth; another man's opinion.
M22s vs. QS8s as surrounds

WoW!, one from the archives. Soup Cans, lol..

Keep in mind that if a soundtrack is mixed using direct radiating speakers, they're still played back in theaters using 8-12 of them to spread the sound out through the theater. When sitting in that theater, a patron doesn't hear surround sound coming from a single pair or two, it's all around the sides and back. This is what the QS series does by spreading the in-phase sound out...

Speaking of in-phase, looks like the light waves coming from your nose have undergone some constructive interference.

Why do all conversations around me end up migrating towards stuff coming out of my nose??

I dunno. Could it be......... SATAN?!

Thanks for the replies. I'll stick with getting the QS8

Hi punisher101,

Sir Quack and others have made the point that the QS8 quadpolar surrounds are meant to mimic the immersive surround effects equivalent to hearing 8 to 10 direct-radiating surrounds in a cinema or mixing theater (italics mine).

It would appear that the writer of the Dummies guide hasn't been in a professional Hollywood mixing theater. I have. These are quite large, seating as many as 300 or 400, with a large mixing console that straddles the middle of the theater. There are the usual rows of direct-radiating surrounds down each side wall and on the rear wall, about 8 to 10 on average.

But the "Dummies" writer doesn't understand that the delay times in much larger spaces (cinemas and mixing theaters) are much longer than those in a home theater or living room, where delay times are very short. So to imitate what happens in a large cinema, the QS8s multi-directional dispersion "sprays" sound in every direction, so that your ears receive a multitude of bounced and reverberant reflections plus the sounds that reach your ears directly from the QS8s. Add in some digital delay (all AV receivers do this), and what results is a very convincing recreation of spatial cues and larger acoustic environments.

One other smaller mixing theater I was in, Dolby Labs facility in Manhattan, which seated about 75 or so, did indeed use multi-polar surrounds quite similar to Axiom's QS8s. (For those who are curious, they were M&K. There were quite effective but no moreso than the QS8s, and much more expensive.)

Regards,

Alan

That is what I was trying to say. Thanks as usual Alan...

Thanks Alan

I never quite realized how old that post really is until i saw the parts about my pre-marriage designation of the wife.

I never did do the soup cans but i did put the EP350 in a downfiring position using hockey pucks in the past.
I'm sure i have a photo of that one still around.

Wow the 350 in a downward facing dog position, lol... I should try my 600 and twin 350's that way, now where are those hockey pucks?

Could it be because your proboscis* is somewhat 'forward' as some speakers are described? Just sayin'. <feel the love>

* proboscis |prəˈbäsəs; -ˈbäskəs|
noun ( pl. -boscises , -boscides |-ˈbäsəˌdēz|, or -bosces |-ˈbäsēz|)
the nose of a mammal, esp. when it is long and mobile, such as the trunk of an elephant or the snout of a tapir.
• Entomology (in many insects) an elongated sucking mouthpart that is typically tubular and flexible.
• Zoology (in some worms) an extensible tubular sucking organ.
ORIGIN early 17th cent.: via Latin from Greek proboskis ‘means of obtaining food,’ from pro ‘before’ + boskein ‘(cause to) feed.’

Punisher,
YMMV. As has been said, this is just one man's opinion (mine in this case). It was my experience in my very large (31'x 23') room that my current direct firing sides sounded better (to me) than when I placed QS8's in their place. I can see how the radiant firing QS8s would be very advantageous in more normal sized rooms (say 12' - 16' apart). When I mounted the QS8s 23' apart and ≈ 12' from the center list. pos. in my room (and I swapped back and forth numerous times... because I am me ;o), I did not hear an advantage over my current DF in-wall speakers. To be fair though, the in-walls with 8" Kevlar woofers and more interior resonance space have a low end advantage over the Qs.

It is very likely that the Q's are your best choice for sides surrounds, as many are extremely pleased with their SQ and performance. So this is a very small caveat. I just wanted to mention that, as in my particular room, with my particular ears ;o), some rooms/ears 'may' prefer DF side surrounds.

Again, just my 2¢ (which has devalued at least 50% in this economy) so take it for what it is/isn't worth.